Lions and Tigers, and Bears oh my!
So which one of these land carnivores would win in a fight? A Polar Bear, Lion, or Tiger? Let's assume that each of them are the males of each species because from what I know the males are the larger and more powerful of each. So which one would be crowned king of the land carnivores?
Polar bear. More than twice the muscular mass of the cats, thick fur to help protect from bites, longer/thicker claws, and one swipe will break a cat's skull or back. The only advantage the cat has is speed, but I don't think it has enough to compensate for the bear's advantages.
The lion and tiger together could probably score a win.
I never understood why Lions were considered the king of the jungle when I always hear that Tigers would basically whoop them in a straight up conflict, but yeah one on one I could see a bear smashing some skulls, bears are stupidly strong I always said if I ever had technology to clone and combine I'd take a silver back gorilla and a grizzly and make a Bearilla, cause I bet the strength it would have would be ridiculous lol.
Originally posted by Mindship
Rhino, imo.
You never know. Polar bears have been known to kill bull walruses, and beluga whales. They have been witnessed to carry beluga whale carcasses for miles before eating them. Large polar bears have also been able to break a full grown bison's back in one blow, so a rhino may find itself on the dinner table as well. this is why I've always wondered why people thought that a silver back gorilla would ever stand a chance against this monster, but that argument is for the other thread.
Originally posted by StoicThis definitely could happen. But I keep thinking, one gouge with that horn...
You never know. Polar bears have been known to kill bull walruses, and beluga whales. They have been witnessed to carry beluga whale carcasses for miles before eating them. Large polar bears have also been able to break a full grown bison's back in one blow, so a rhino may find itself on the dinner table as well.
I think the bear has a much better shot against a rhino than a tiger or lion has against a polar bear.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Lions are regal and kingly. Tigers are serial regiciders. The idiom fits.
I'm hoping that at least some people got this.
Originally posted by Stoic
Large polar bears have also been able to break a full grown bison's back in one blow,
Please site the reference because there is no possible way that a Bison or a Polar Bear could ever possibly meet in the wild, so I am interested to know how this happened and who recorded it.
As for the lion, people have discounted that:
1. It's mane has evolved to protect it's neck during a fight.
2. Male lions fight. Constantly. They rarely hunt, they fight. Tigers may be larger on average, but Male lions fight other large cats on a regular basis and get good at it. Tigers are predators, they show caution when approaching an animal they are going to kill, or apprehension before they have to commit themselves in a standoff. Lions go "balls out".
Those points gotta count for something.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
As for the lion, people have discounted that:
1. It's mane has evolved to protect it's neck during a fight.
2. Male lions fight. Constantly. They rarely hunt, they fight. Tigers may be larger on average, but Male lions fight other large cats on a regular basis and get good at it. Tigers are predators, they show caution when approaching an animal they are going to kill, or apprehension before they have to commit themselves in a standoff. Lions go "balls out".Those points gotta count for something.
Still, at weight parity it is a standoff between both cats due to too many anatomical and behavioral similarities. At average weights however, the tiger takes it.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Not to mention that Craig Packer has dismissed the idea that the mane helps in fights, on the contrary he believes that it would actually handicap the lion due to overheating.
Actually he said ""Some people have suggested the mane's evolution was initially due to its ability to protect the neck in fights, but our data suggests this is not a significant factor," not that it does not protect them in fights.
Clyde Beatty (deceased animal trainer) stated, "I can cite a few instances of male tigers whipping male lions, but I can't think of one such case where the tiger didn't have a distinct advantage. I also recall a case where a tiger had a marked advantage and lost the fight. The lion seems to have no fear of the tiger."
Louis Roth (animal trainer) who has witnessed actual tiger/lion encounters stated, "that sometimes the lion wins, sometimes the tiger. "
You can pull up a hundred pages on this argument, and all of it leads me to believe that the outcome of a Lion and Tiger is too close to call.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Actually he said ""Some people have suggested the mane's evolution was initially due to its ability to protect the neck in fights, but our data suggests this is not a significant factor," not that it does not protect them in fights.Clyde Beatty (deceased animal trainer) stated, "I can cite a few instances of male tigers whipping male lions, but I can't think of one such case where the tiger didn't have a distinct advantage. I also recall a case where a tiger had a marked advantage and lost the fight. The lion seems to have no fear of the tiger."
Louis Roth (animal trainer) who has witnessed actual tiger/lion encounters stated, "that sometimes the lion wins, sometimes the tiger. "
You can pull up a hundred pages on this argument, and all of it leads me to believe that the outcome of a Lion and Tiger is too close to call.
If want my advice, don't ever cite Clyde Beatty in a LionVsTiger debate. I can give a collage of reasons as to why he is the most unreliable source for comparing these big cats in combat, from that infamous ammonia incident while staging the lion-tiger fight for the Big Cage, to outright admitting that he purposely conditioned his tigers to be submissive to the lions, to pitting male lions against female tigers, declining Mabel Starks challenge etc.
I agree though, in general there's a lot of evidence for both sides, which is why I specifically mention that at weight parity, it's a standoff between the 2 cats.
This is my analysis of the debate:
1)Weight parity: lion-tiger standoff, with bear being a definitive inferior.
2)Average size/weight: tiger, lion, bear.
3)Peak size/weight:bear, tiger, lion.
Originally posted by KharmaDogYou can pull up a hundred pages on this argument, and all of it leads me to believe that the outcome of a Lion and Tiger is too close to call. [/B]
It would depend on which subspecies of tiger which vary in size much more than lions do. Comments by those animal experts are probably referring to the Bengal tiger which is the most common subspecies and similar in size to a lion at around 500 pounds. A lion would have a clear advantage over a Summatran tiger which weighs in at around 350 lbs but would be a dinner to an 800 lb Siberian tiger.